Thanks Mr Brian Candler,,,
Im the one who managing a recursor server not the one who manage an
authoritative server for ramallah-gis.ps.

Advertising

but I noticed the previous case in ramallah-gis.ps domain, SO , is there away
to avoid such a problem in the recursor , (force to get from nscp1/2 and not to
go further just like what dns.google do )
[cid:image002.png@01D327F4.25E9A910]
Mohamad Barham
System administrator | Information Technology Department
Birzeit University
P.O.Box. 14, Birzeit, Palestine
Tel: + 970 22982012 | Mob: +970 597 861929 | Ext: 5616
mbar...@birzeit.edu | www.birzeit.edu<http://www.birzeit.edu/>
________________________________
From: Brian Candler <b.cand...@pobox.com>
Sent: Thursday, May 17, 2018 10:52:10 AM
To: Mohamad F. Barham; pdns-users@mailman.powerdns.com
Subject: Re: [Pdns-users] (no subject)
On 17/05/2018 06:34, Mohamad F. Barham wrote:
> dig -t ANY ps @172.21.2.153
>
> ps. 60 IN NS rip.psg.com.
> ps. 60 IN NS ote.pnina.ps.
> ps. 60 IN NS fork.sth.dnsnode.net.
> ps. 60 IN NS ps-ns.anycast.pch.net.
> ps. 60 IN NS dns1.gov.ps.
> ps. 60 IN SOA ns1.pnina.ps. sys.pnina.ps. 2018050308 86400 7200 3600000 172800
> ps. 60 IN TXT "Generation Time: 1525341615"
> ps. 60 IN NS ns1.pnina.ps.
> ps. 60 IN NS ps.cctld.authdns.ripe.net.
>
> dig -t ANY ramallah-gis.ps @dns1.gov.ps
> ramallah-gis.ps. 86400 IN NS nscp1.intertech-pal.com.
> ramallah-gis.ps. 86400 IN NS nscp2.intertech-pal.com.
>
>
> dig -t ANY ramallah-gis.ps @nscp1.intertech-pal.com
> ramallah-gis.ps. 14400 IN MX 0 ramallah-gis.ps.
> ramallah-gis.ps. 86400 IN SOA ns2.cmeac.net. sys.mada.ps. 2015101905 86400
> 7200 3600000
> 86400
> ramallah-gis.ps. 86400 IN NS ns2.cmeac.net.
> ramallah-gis.ps. 14400 IN A 213.6.7.147
>
> as shown here there is an A record , but my recursor does not take this A
> record, it go
> further to get it from ns2.cmeac.net , while this server is down.
You have inconsistency in your delegation.
- In the parent zone (ps), ramallah-gis.ps is delegated to
nscp1.intertech-pal.com and nscp2.intertech-pal.com
- In the zone itself, ramallah-gis.ps is delegated to ns2.cmeac.net only
- ns2.cmeac.net is not responding to queries.
Suppose a client wants to resolve the A record for ramallah-gis.ps. It will
ask its nearby cache for the answer.
If this is the first time the cache has done a query for this domain, then the
query will go to nscp1/2.intertech-pal.com. However if it has previously done a
query, it will have cached the NS record from within the zone. Depending on
the software they're running, some caches will *merge* the NS records from the
delegation and within the zone; other caches will *replace* the NS records with
those within the zone, and only send queries to ns2.cmeac.net from then onwards
(until the NS records expire). And of course, with only one nameserver within
the zone, there is no resilience (see RFC 2182); if that nameserver is down,
clients will get only SERVFAIL.
Now let's check how those three nameservers answer:
$ dig +short @nscp1.intertech-pal.com. ramallah-gis.ps. a
213.6.7.147
$ dig +short @nscp2.intertech-pal.com. ramallah-gis.ps. a
213.6.7.147
$ dig +short @ns2.cmeac.net. ramallah-gis.ps. a
;; connection timed out; no servers could be reached
<< that means SERVFAIL >>
So that's your problem: the problem is in how the zone itself is set up, not
the recursor, which is behaving correctly. Once a cache has learned that
ns2.cmeac.net is the sole nameserver for the zone (learned from the
authoritative information within the zone), it may only send queries to this
bad nameserver.
To fix this, you need to decide which nameservers are going to be authoritative
for the domain. Is it only nscp1.intertech-pal.com and
nscp2.intertech-pal.com? Or do you want three nameservers:
nscp1.intertech-pal.com, nscp2.intertech-pal.com and ns2.cmeac.net ? Or some
other combination of nameservers?
* If you only want two nameservers nscp1/2, which are working and which the
domain is already delegated to, then the fix is simple. Inside the zone file,
remove the NS record pointing to ns2.cmeac.net and add two NS records pointing
to nscp1.intertech-pal.com and nscp2.intertech-pal.com. Job done.
Queries for <any>.ramallah-gis.ps will then only ever hit those two
nameservers, and if one is down, clients will use the other [^1]
* If you want a different set of nameservers than that, then you have to:
1. configure all the nameservers so they have identical zone contents. Normally
this is done by configuring replication. You can use DNS zone transfers, so one
nameserver is master and the others slave from it; or perhaps you build all the
nameservers with a database backend, and you configure SQL replication between
the backends.
2. configure NS records inside the zone listing those nameservers
3. change the delegation to point to those nameservers. This means asking your
registrar to change the set of NS records for your domain; this will cause a
change in the zone file for the "ps" domain.
So for example, suppose you want nscp1/2 *and* ns2.cmeac.net to be
authoritative nameservers for this domain. You need to configure replication
so that ns2.cmeac.net is authoritative for the domain *and* has identical zone
contents to the other two nameservers. Then you have to create three NS
records inside the zone. Then you have to change the delegation in your
registrar to point to these three nameservers.
Note that if you do want to use ns2.cmeac.net as a nameserver then you need at
least one other nameserver as well; and it needs to be on a different network
backbone (again, details in RFC 2182). Otherwise you can certainly expect
random failures to occur intermittently.
This is clearly not a pdns-recursor issue, because you want your zone to be
resolvable by anyone on the Internet regardless of which recursor softwarwe
they're using; but I hope this helps anyway.
Regards,
Brian.
[^1] Except that I just checked, and nscp1 and nscp2 both resolve to the same
IP address, 46.43.66.107. Hence in reality there is only a single nameserver
and there is no resilience whatsoever! Please, please, please read RFC 2182...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The information contained in this communication is intended solely for the use
of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed and others authorized to
receive it. It may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If
you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any disclosure,
copying, distribution or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this
information is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received
this communication in error, please notify us immediately by responding to this
email and then delete it from your system. The University is neither liable for
the proper and complete transmission of the information contained in this
communication nor for any delay in its receipt.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~